So much for deflation.
Given that the railways were only ever "privatised" on the understanding that their profits would be guaranteed by public subsidy, their shareholders have already been more than compensated enough for renationalisation to take place without further compensation.
The railways could then form the core of a national network of public transport, free at the point of use, including the re-opening of bus route and (where possible) rail line closures going back to the 1950s.
Or do we only ever have the money for wars and to rescue banks, both permanent commitments, whatever anyone might say to the contrary?
No conservative can object to British ownership, which of course what public ownership is. Nor can any conservative object to a transport strategy based on something that we invented, to which our terrain and landscape are particularly suited, and which we can run on domestically generated electricity rather than on imported oil.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The economics of this might be a bit suspect as is the history. The railways were privatized on the assumption that certainly the Intercity franchises and the South eastern franchises would make money and not require public funding. The franchises within transport authorities were more complicated as different funding streams were on board. Other franchises were never expected to make money, so perhaps you need to first consider which shareholders have been compensated and work from there.
ReplyDeleteAs to reopenings I'm glad to hear the BPA wants to rollback the cuts of the 1950's onwards. A couple of figures to help you in your financial planning. The Beeching cuts (62 onward) closed c.4065 miles. Most people regard these as the bad cuts.
Network Rail has reopened a number of projects in recent years. The Stirling to Alloa extension just completed is a really exiting project up here but that cost £6million per route mile. Another proposed project Lewes to Uckfield is estimated at £1.5 to £2 million per mile (although there is real question about that). Nevertheless because of economies of scale lets work on £2.5 million a mile. To undo Beeching would therefore costing the region of £10,162,500,000.
However, I note your desire to go back to 1950 closures so we need to add another 3105 route miles closed from 1950 to the publication of Beeching in 62. That would come in at £7,762,500,000. Good value I agree.
So to undo the closures of 1950 onwards a figure of £17,925,000,000. In the region of 18 billion. Of course this figure does not include the rolling stock required (say £1million a carrage - and a good few required) plus the additional staff and maintenance. If it did all go worng and cost £6 million a year it would be nearer £43 billion (give or take).
Add to this the desire to be free at the point of delivery, a wonderful and visionary idea, the farebox in 06-07 was £5.3 billion. It's a bit more today but let's stick with the rough figures. Government subsidy has been as high as 6.3 billion but its been scaling back at the moment to between 4 & 5 billion. So over the next ten years these two figures, lets say passenger fares of 5 billion and Government sub of 3 billion would equal 80 billion plus inflation.
So on a really rough costing over the next ten years you would be proposing about a hundred billion (probably more with the new trains and extra staff and little hidden things like when a supermarket or housing estate is built around the old track bed so an expensive new one has to be built). How would you plan to cover this money?
Neverthless, great plan.
Best. Comment. Ever.
ReplyDeleteDavid - how are you proposing to meet this £100bn then?
I fear Anonymous may have underestimated the cost, because currently fares act as a disincentive to use rail. If all fares were free, demand would rise dramatically, and capacity would have to rise to meet it. I'm afraid I find it difficult to estimate what the additional cost of this would be, but it would not be negligible.
ReplyDeleteWe may discount Jon, who only believes in public spending to kill certain ethnic groups as such (Arabs, Persians, Slavs, probably Chinese soon enough), and then only if he and his remain exempt from paying the taxes on grounds of wealth.
ReplyDeleteJon is also extremely opposed to the high-wage, high-skilled, high-status jobs offered to the lower orders by coal, by coal-fired electricity generation, and by nuclear power, all without sending a penny to the Gulf.
As much as anything else, if such jobs were available, then the lower orders would feel no need to join up and kill certain ethnic groups as such (Arabs, Persians, Slavs, probably Chinese soon enough).
Anonymous, note the "where possible" when it comes to re-opening the lines. The main thing is to establish the free public transport network (which would largely pay for itself - much of transport's current administrative costs are those of the fares and ticketing system). Then we could roll it out.
A very extensive railway network has of course been preserved continuously in the South East. But this country's economic base is now moving back from finance to manufacturing (even now twice the GDP of the whole financial services sector, never mind of the City alone), and thus from London and its environs to Scotland, Wales, the North and the Midlands, where goods and the people who make them really do need to be transported - it cannot just be done sitting at a computer anywhere with an Internet connection.
David, what does "ad hominem" mean?
ReplyDeleteEric, demand is supposed to rise. That is very largely the point.
ReplyDeleteAnd then we will have even more of our own people employed to drive the trains (running so much more frequnetly), to patrol them (bring back guards, along with bus conductors, park keepers, and something called Police on the streets), to patrol the stations, to clean the trains and stations, to build and repair the trains, to lay and maintain the track, to make the track, to generate the electricty, to dig the coal (of which we have any amount)...
All the things that Jon finds objectionable, in fact.
Vat amounts of central and local government spending, though employing nowhere near as many people, are necessary to maintain the road network. And for what? To ruin our beautiful countryside, to cut communities in half in a way that railways never do, to make people far less sociable and civically engaged, and keep us dependent on foreign oil.
Presumably you would still need a ticket so there could still only be so many people on a train, bus, tram, whatever. It's just that the tickets would be free.
ReplyDelete"Vast amounts of central and local government spending, though employing nowhere near as many people, are necessary to maintain the road network"
ReplyDeleteBut roads are free to drive on. I thought you said that the only cost of trains was pretty much the admin cost of pricing it. Why are free roads still so expensuve then?
Yes, and therefore limited in number - the machine could just be programmed not to issue any more, and if the machine were not working then there would still be the relevant member of staff.
ReplyDeleteJon and such people do want to kill Arabs, but do also want to remain dependent on the Gulf potentates. Why?
ReplyDelete"the machine could just be programmed not to issue any more"
ReplyDeleteDavid, you do realise that this "machine" will be taking a job that a man could do, don't you?
"But roads are free to drive on."
ReplyDeleteNot for much longer. And anyway, what do you think that road tax and petrol duty are?
"thought you said that the only cost of trains was pretty much the admin cost of pricing it."
I never said any such thing. You'll have to do better than that if, like the Duke of Wellington, you want to keep the lower orders from moving around.
"Jon and such people do want to kill Arabs, but do also want to remain dependent on the Gulf potentates. Why?"
One of the great mysteries of the age. Like why they are so opposed to this sort of public spending in particular, when they don't pay tax no matter what the money goes on.
"David, you do realise that this "machine" will be taking a job that a man could do, don't you?"
ReplyDeleteNot unless it can also drive the bus or train, keep the teenage passengers in order, help the old ladies on and off, &c.
I realise that you don't use public transport because you don't use public anything except public schools. But let me tell you that machines issuing tickets do already exist. No one writes them out by hand.
"you don't use public transport because you don't use public anything except public schools"
ReplyDeleteVery, very minor ones I bet.
I always enjoy when you get these people angry. They are so used to their own way all the time and never being asked any questions.
Come on then Jon et al, if we can find the money to bail you out and fight your wars, then why not for something like this?
Age isn't wearing you then, David.
Nor the years condemning.
ReplyDeleteAge cannot wither him, nor custom stale his infinite variety.
Thank you.
ReplyDelete"Age cannot wither him, nor custom stale his infinite variety."
ReplyDeleteCome on Jon, what has to change to get this quotation right? Name the play. Even the author would do. No Googling.
Can we stay on topic, please.
ReplyDelete"David, what does "ad hominem" mean?"
ReplyDeleteAsk Jon.
Cooooeeeee? Daaaaavvvvid? You unaccountably seem to be failing to progress this fascinating on topic discussion by failing to put any other comments up.
ReplyDeleteIt surely can't be because you don't actually want to continue it, do you? That appears to be the only conclusion one can draw...
No, it's just that there weren't any.
ReplyDeleteI hate to break the news to you, but not everyone in the world or on the Net is employed by you, your family or your friends. Everyone that you know in the flesh and who is not you, your family or your friends. But not everyone in the world or on the Net.
So not every discussion is open until you say otherwise or everyone agrees with you. Nor is your saying so or (and I know that this is unlikely) everyone's agreeing with you necessarily the end of every discussion.
This particular discussion, for example, had apparently come to its natural end. Even without your having said so. And even without everyone's having agreed with you.
See. That's how it works.
Over on another thread (take it up over there, not here), it has been pointed out that Jon voted for the BNP and urged all his friends to do so.
ReplyDeleteAs I said in the original post there, the Political Class wants a breakthrough for the BNP. Numerous Westminster Villagers (including Jon) sped that along in the polling booths of London not so long ago, making sure that the BNP got the GLA list seat for which it was in any case well on course.
And they regard with unalloyed glee the prospect of at least nine, and probably 12, BNP MEPs next year. That would secure First Past The Post for at least a generation. It would be the excuse for all manner of repressive measures aimed mostly at the white working class, and therefore likely to receive little or no media coverage.
And it would confirm all their own prejudices, enabling them to denounce "pandering" to actual or potential BNP voters.
I expect that "Break Dancing Jesus" also has a flat in London. If so, then he, too, will have done a Jon: voting for Boris for Mayor, and voting for the BNP for the Assembly.